Research and Engineering for Iczm in Poland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ICZM in a climate change perspective Important issues for the Baltic Sea Lubiatowo, June 2008 RESEARCHRESEARCH ANDAND ENGINEERINGENGINEERING FORFOR ICZMICZM ININ POLANDPOLAND Rafał Ostrowski, Marek Skaja & Marek Szmytkiewicz Institute of Hydro-Engineering of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IBW PAN ) Ko ścierska 7, 80-328 Gda ńsk, Poland (www.ibwpan.gda.pl ) Act of Parliament of Republic of Poland (28 March 2003) on establishment of long-term ‘Coastal Protection Programme’ • protection of sea coast against erosion • implementation 2004-2023 • stabilization of shoreline position according to configuration in year 2000 and prevention of beach loss • monitoring of the coast and research activities aimed at determination of current condition of the coast in order to indicate necessary measures aimed at the rescue of sea coast • responsibility for supervision (Ministry) and implementation (Maritime Offices) • allocation of funds • determination of protective methods (beach fills, modernization of shore protection structures, erection of new structures, cliff drainage) • distribution of awarded funds along the coast Governmental Directive (29 April 2003) on determination of the width of the coastal technical/protective belt • definition of the technical belt width for shore segments a) with dunes b) with cliffs c) without dunes or cliffs d) built up by coastal structures CRS LUBIATOWO WLADYSLAWOWO B A L T I C S E A LEBA HEL USTKA Gulf of Gdansk GDANSK (IBW PAN) Pomeranian KOLOBRZEG FINLAND Bay A I SWINOUJSCIE S S U R NORWAY ESTONIA A E SWEDEN S LATVIA C I T L A LITHUANIA B Location of the Polish coast in DENMARK RUSSIA the south Baltic Sea Pomeranian BELARUS Gulf GERMANY P O L A N D Maritime Office in Gdynia Maritime Office in Słupsk Maritime Office in Szczecin Erosive and flooding threats on Polish coast Types and locations of shore protection structures Eroded ... ... and protected cliff at Rozewie Beach disappearance due to hard structures, Ustronie Morskie + 4.0 m 1 3 : : + 3.0 m 3 1 + 2.5 m recommended profile of beach and dune + 1.5 m 1 : 20 existing profile at KM 344.5 (most threatened shore segment) ± 0.0 20 10 4.5 50 Recommended profile of artificial dune and beach Gabion revetment built into artificial dune CRS LUBIATOWO WLADYSLAWOWO & HEL PENINSULA LEBAŁEBA B A L T I C S E A HEL USTKA GDYNIA Gulf of GdanskGda ńsk GDANSKGDA ŃSK (IBW PAN) Pomeranian KOLOBRZEGKOŁOBRZEG Bay SWINOUJSCIEŚWINOUJ ŚCIE SZCZECIN Władysławowo harbour: accretion on west side (bottom), lee side protected by groins and beach fills (top left hand side) Sand trap at Wladyslawowo harbour Artificial beach nourishment at Hel Peninsula Failure of breakwater armour made of tetrapods Reconstruction of armour at Wladyslawowo harbour breakwater in September 2003 N Bathymetry in front of Wladyslawowo o r t h b r harbour breakwater in 2003 100 m e points of bathymetric measurements a k w a t e r representative bottom profile 3.0 2.5 ] m 2.0 [ t h g i e 1.5 h e v for bathymetry of 10.12.1996 a 1.0 w for bathymetry of 29.11.2003 0.5 0.0 breakwater 4 bottom profile on 10.12.1996 2 bottom profile on 29.11.2003 0 -2 -4 water[m] depth Wave transformation -6 crest rubble-mound on seabed profiles -8 of December 1996 and November 2003 -10 for normal water level 0 50 100 150 200 distance [m] 3.0 2.5 ] m 2.0 [ t h g i e 1.5 h e v for bathymetry of 10.12.1996 a 1.0 w for bathymetry of 29.11.2003 0.5 0.0 breakwater 4 bottom profile on 10.12.1996 2 bottom profile on 29.11.2003 0 -2 -4 water depth [m] water depth rubble-moundcrest Wave transformation -6 on seabed profiles of December 1996 -8 and November 2003 -10 for storm surge +1.21 m 0 50 100 150 200 distance [m] 3.0 2.5 ] m 2.0 [ t h g i e 1.5 h e v for bathymetry of 10.12.1996 a 1.0 w for bathymetry of 29.11.2003 0.5 0.0 breakwater 4 bottom profile on 10.12.1996 2 bottom profile on 29.11.2003 0 -2 -4 water depth [m]depthwater rubble-mound crest rubble-mound Wave transformation -6 on seabed profiles -8 of December 1996 and November 2003 -10 for storm surge +1.51 m 0 50 100 150 200 distance [m] 3.0 2.5 ] m 2.0 [ t h g i e 1.5 for storm surge +1.21 m h e for storm surge +1.51 m v a 1.0 for storm surge +1.81 m w 0.5 0.0 breakwater 4 2 bottom profile on 29.11.2003 0 -2 Wave transformation on -4 water depth[m]water seabed profile rubble-mound crest -6 of November 2003 for storm surges -8 +1.21 m, 1.51 m and 1.81 m -10 0 50 100 150 200 distance [m] Shore Protection Manual, Vol. II Sea level H [m] Mass* [kg] Extreme 20-year storm surge 4.65 ~8000 (+1.21 m) Extreme 20-year storm surge + anticipated sea level rise by 0.3 m 4.76 ~8600 (+1.51 m) Extreme 20-year storm surge + anticipated sea level rise by 0.6 m 4.88 ~9250 (1.81 m) * originally designed as 5000 kg DEBKI (PIASNICA RIVER MOUTH) CRS LUBIATOWO WLADYSLAWOWO LEBA B A L T I C S E A HEL USTKA GDYNIA Gulf of Gdansk GDANSK (IBW PAN) Pomeranian KOLOBRZEG Bay SWINOUJSCIE SZCZECIN 3568700 3568800 3568900 3569000 3569100 3569200 3569300 3569400 3569500 3569600 6138700 6138700 Baltic Sea 6138600 6138600 a ic n ś ia P 6138500 6138500 3568700 3568800 3568900 3569000 3569100 3569200 3569300 3569400 3569500 3569600 [m] 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pia śnica river mouth in February 2008 Storm surge in Nov. 2004, photo by W. Lipiec (after Basiński, 2007) Storm surge in Nov. 2004, photo by W. Lipiec (after Basiński, 2007) 3568700 3568750 3568800 3568850 3568900 3568950 3569000 6138700 6138700 Baltic Sea 6138650 6138650 structure line 6138600 6138600 a 6138550 ic 6138550 n ś ia P 6138500 6138500 3568700 3568750 3568800 3568850 3568900 3568950 3569000 [m] 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Location of built-in structure in option 1 3568800 3568850 3568900 3568950 3569000 3569050 3569100 3569150 3569200 6138700 6138700 Baltic Sea structure line 6138650 6138650 6138600 6138600 a ic n ś ia 6138550 P 6138550 6138500 6138500 3568800 3568850 3568900 3568950 3569000 3569050 3569100 3569150 3569200 [m] 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Location of built-in structure in options 2 and 3 Conclusions • legal regulations (allocated money, defined areas) • monitoring • assessment studies • preferences for environment-friendly measures • need of compromise.